ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/03/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 2, 1986 6:04PM
Volume 5, Issue 86
Today's Topics:
Aircraft Carriers
Summits
Conflict Resolution
WWII & WWI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 08:28 PST
From: "Morton Jim"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Aircraft Carriers
I can think of several reasons for Aircraft Carriers. First is fleet
defense. A carrier can provide several hundred miles of extension to
the "umbrella" of defense afforded by ship-board radar and missile systems.
As a base of operations, E-3 "Hawkeye" AWACS planes can provide long distance
radar capability as well as some battle managment. ASW air operations allow
aircraft ( both fixed and rotary wing ) to "Sweep" an area clear of hostile
submarines before the task force moves within range of those submarines.
When we had battleships off the coast of Lebanon shelling the coast,
Carrier based aircraft provided both radar and fighter cover to those gunships.
(Remember the Libyan fighters shot down by Navy F-14's ? ? )
Force projection is also valid. When Idi Amin was telling all American
citizens in Uganda to report to Entebbe airfield, U.S.S. Enterprise steamed
at good speed to the Indian Ocean and began to prepare for various attack
and rescue possibilities. As I recall , Idi changed his mind about those
American Citizens. ( at which point cluster bombs came off the A-7's ) After
the lack of an Air Force caused by the Israli rescue at Entebbe, Enterprise's
air attack capability was a significant threat to Amin.
Also the Falklands Britan's effective use of air cover afforded by her
carriers was a significant point in the battles there.
Even in the event of theatre or larger nuclear war, the carrier is valuable.
How would a carrier be attacked? ? Submarines could sink a carrier with a
nuclear warhead, but when the first detonation was sattelite detected or
reported by other task force members, global fleet readieness would be
elevated and nuclear retaliation prepared. I would prefer to see a military
ship far out at sea nuked first rather than an air force base next to my
home town. Since the carrier is a nuclear capable platform of significant
capability that must be countered by any enemy who would attack the U.S. it
makes their planning and execution of attack much more difficult.
O.K. i will stop now !
Jim Morton ( an ex Enterprise salor )
------------------------------
Subject: Summits
Date: 02 Jan 86 10:48:45 PST (Thu)
From: foy@aero
Jan 1 I saw the Reagan and Gorbachev message exchange; I saw the NBC replay of
the Seattle/Leningrad Peoples Summit; I saw the Minneapolis/Moscow Childrens
Summit. It is almost my opinion that there is an inverse correlation between
the rank of the indivuals involved in the three exchanges and the future
benefits which will occur to the human species.
Is there anyone out there who also saw the Peoples Summit or the Childrens
Summit who would like to discuss them a bit?
richard foy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 11:18:26 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
> From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>
>
> From: foy at aero
>
> After awhile
> the men in the trenches became almost friends with the men across no mans
> land...
>
> I'd actually like to see a reference on this one...
This is discussed in a book called "The Evolution of Cooperation".
It's pretty well known to social psychologists and economists. Author'
name escapes me, though.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 15:28:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Conflict Resolution
From: alpert at harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Armies are needed because war is an practiced method of resolving
international conflict.
Violence and war is the means of last resort to impose your will. If
playing GO were, then both sides would have GO players.
The point is you have leaders/nations unwilling to take "no" for an
answer; as long as you have that, you will have war and armed forces.
------------------------------
Subject: WWII & WWI
Date: 02 Jan 86 13:47:52 PST (Thu)
From: foy@aero
Paul Dietz states I was wrong about Russian entering WWII earlier because
she and Germany carved up Poland before Germany attacked Russia. Correct.
However that doesn't address the point that was originally made about
fighting for moral pricipals.
I don't rember the reference about the soldiers not shooting to kill in WWI.
I believe it was in a review of a recently published history book written
by a history prof. Perhaps a check with your history department could find
it.
I find the soldiers not shooting to kill highly believable. After several
years on the static front, in close enough proximity to be able to see the
enemy, being ablae to have time to reflect on what the fight is all about,
haveing the physical and social means to develope a you save my skin and
I'll save yours in an unspoken agreement, seems highly plausible to me.
In addition I have some where else of a study of the use of fighting in
WWII. (Again I don't remember the reference). This study indicated that
something like 50% of the combantants in WWII did not fire their rifles.
Most of us have a strong built in mechanism that prevents us from killing
one of our own species. It takes a lot of dehumanising of the enemy to{
get troops to kill each other.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************